The Strategic Director Children’s Services will submit Document “AA” which details progress made by children’s centre clusters in respect of new key performance indicators which were introduced in 2017.  The report also describes progress made in respect of the integration of children’s centres and Health.

 

Recommended-

 

(1)  That the information in the report be noted.

 

(2)  That it be noted that future overview and scrutiny of arrangements for securing improved outcomes including through children’s centre services, would be determined by the outcomes of the Prevention and Early Help consultation and final proposals would be submitted to the Executive in April 2018.

 

(Lynn Donohue/Susan Moreau – 01274 439606/431390)

 

 

 

The Strategic Director Children’s Services submitted Document “AA” which detailed the progress made by the Children’s Centres in respect of seven new Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which had been introduced from 1 April 2017.  The report also outlined the progress made in respect of the integration of Children’s Centres and Health services.

 

In response to a question, the Strategic Director clarified that this was a report in respect of the performance of the Children’s Centres relative to Key Performance Indicators. The outcome of the consultation on Prevention and Early Help (which would inform the future arrangements of the Children’s Centres (CC)) would be considered by the Executive in April.  The consultation on this issue had closed on 12 February 2018. Over 700 responses to the consultation had been received and these were currently being analysed. He was unable to comment on that issue at this meeting as sufficient time was needed to properly consider the responses received and the options for moving forward. Sufficient time had been programmed to enable the necessary analysis and assessment of all the representations.

 

In presenting the report, the following issues were highlighted:

 

·         There were seven new KPIs relating to:

o   Contact with those 3 year olds not accessing early education at Age 3, for which the target was 95%.

There was generally good take-up of three year old places but some of the most disadvantaged were not accessing this entitlement. It was too early to assess at this stage if the target was being met but this KPI had certainly made this issue a strong focus for workers and had led to an issue with mobility in the city being identified.

o   All family support cases being underpinned by a robust ‘Signs of Safety’ Action Plan.

Signs of Safety was generally well used although further development was considered possible.  It was acknowledged that it would normally take up to three years for the impact of this model to be demonstrated.

o   Reduction in the levels of obesity in Reception age children, the target for which was -10%.

o   Reduction in the numbers of missing/decayed/filled teeth in Reception age children, the target for which was -10%.

There were specific programmes in place to support these initiatives and more data was expected to be available in the Summer term. In terms of oral health there was a significant difference in the figures for the most advantaged and most disadvantaged communities.

o   Increase the percentage of expectant mothers who set a smoking cessation date further to referral by midwives, the target for which was 25%.

All the Children’s Centre Clusters (CCCs) now had staff trained to support expectant mothers in quitting smoking. Again, more robust data on the results/achievement of target would be available in a few months time.

o   Increase take-up of 2 year old places in education.

Take-up was now 76% across the district although there was a wide range of variation between different areas.  Children’s Centres and the Families Information Service were working in partnership to encourage the most disadvantaged families to access this entitlement.

o   Improvement in the levels of Reception age children achieving a Good Level of Development (GLD) by 2020 with a specific focus on those eligible for free school meals.

The percentage of children achieving a GLD had increased, although the gap between the national average figure and the Bradford district had not narrowed at this point. There was a focus on the take-up of 2 year old places and early language development.  A pilot scheme was being undertaken in Holme Wood to assess the impact of intervention at the age of 12 months if there were concerns about potential speech and language delay.

·         There was much closer integration with health services and this was underpinned by the Integrated Care Pathway (ICP) approach. A lot of the work had been driven by the CCCs, with integrated action plans being produced.  This was considered to be a significant area of progress.

 

A Member commented that the Children’s Centres were to be congratulated on the great work they did.  It was believed that one of the reasons they were so successful was due to services being located under one roof.  If this model did not continue the concern was that many parents would not be able to access the services.  Problems were being experienced in terms of accessing dentists. It was considered that if the Children’s Centres were lost this would lead to increased costs for the public purse later on.

 

In response to questions/issues raised by Members, the Strategic Director said that:

 

·         Families referred to the CC Family Support Teams would not necessarily need a Family Support Plan and their needs would often be met through other services provided by the CC.

·         It was not possible at this stage to gauge the impact on the achievement of KPIs of changes to Early Help and Prevention (EHP) services. This was a difficult situation and the service would do their best it could.

·         ‘Better Start’ came under a different funding regime and was currently on Year 4 of 10.

·         The potential impact of changes to Early Help provision had been discussed with the Better Start Board and the Big Lottery Fund and there was a willingness to discuss with the Authority what might be done to help mitigate any impacts.

·         Health Visitors were by far the largest source of referrals. Integrated working assisted in addressing many of a family’s needs.

·         In terms of Signs of Safety; this model/approach required a cultural shift in how support was provided to families and for confidence in its effectiveness to build; it would be fairer to say that the impacts would begin to be seen after 3 years rather than it would take 3 years to imbed.

 

Representatives of the Children’s Centre Clusters, specifically the Lister Park, Airedale/Wharfedale and West Bradford Clusters were in attendance at the meeting and were given the opportunity to address the Committee (they also tabled a proposal document):

 

·         It was believed that the proposals (in respect of EHP) put forward for consultation were disjointed in comparison with existing arrangements and that it would be far better to build on what was already being done.

·         The Nursery Schools had submitted proposals for an alternative model.

·         As leaders of the Children’s Centres since 2004 it was considered that they were well qualified and well placed to contribute knowledgably to the debate.

·         It was considered that, as proposed, the links with schools and health were not clear and that they needed to be central to the structure, location and delivery of services.

·         The report presented to the Committee highlighted the varied work undertaken by the Children’s Centres and the impact they had.

·         It was important that services were provided in the right locations. The CC staff knew their communities because they worked in the heart of them; it was important that all this knowledge was not lost. The people were more important than the buildings.

·         The advantages of these proposals were in addition to those identified in relation to Option 3 put to the Executive.

·         The figures in the tabled document were estimates but the aim had been to move more staff out of the central team and have a cluster type model with approximately 20 hubs based on smaller geographical areas. There would be up to 126 frontline staff and fewer manager and support staff roles.

·         Health Visitors, School Nurses and Oral Health Workers would be co-located; this was considered to be very important.

·         The closer the service could be to the community the better it could meet their needs.

           

In response to Members’ questions they stated that:

 

·         The biggest concern in reducing resources would be in respect of safeguarding.

·         The evidence of the impact the CCs were having on GLD and health targets had been presented; there was no mention of KPIs in the new proposals and it was not known how these could continue to be met.

·         The work undertaken in increasing take up of places and inclusion was considered to be critical to improved achievement of GLD.

·         It was not considered that it would be possible to meet the requirements of the KPIs under the new model.

·         It was believed that head teachers valued the work undertaken and would want hubs in school; a significant amount of such work was already undertaken by a lot of schools and they knew how important it was.  A number of CCs were already co-located in schools. There were a number of ‘good’ schools in the district that had excellent links with their community.

·         It was vital that what was good about the existing provision was retained as far as possible.

 

In response, the Strategic Director said that:

 

·         The contribution of the Nursery Schools was valued.

·         Whilst noting that there had been more than 700 representations in response to the EHP consultation that needed to be analysed/considered, he gave a commitment to consider the points put forward.

·         The present KPIs for the CCs were included within the Prevention and Early Help Outcome Framework and the proposals stated that early childhood development would be a priority going forwards.

·         The Service was working closely with Public Health and wider health colleagues to build on the 0-5 integrated care pathway and the integration of health visiting and school nursing in the proposed model.

 

The Strategic Director answered further questions/comments from Members:

 

·         The indicative budget had been approved in 2017 and the principle and approach in respect of EHP agreed in June 2017. The future arrangements would be a decision for the Executive.

·         In terms of clawback, a strong indication of the Department for Education’s stance had been gleaned from information in the public domain as a result of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Where the space had continued to be used for the benefit of families with young children, eg: as part of a school or nursery setting, clawback had not been invoked.

·         Discussion was taking place with the relevant agencies, such as those in the voluntary sector, in respect of contractual arrangements where timescales may not align with the implementation of new arrangements.

 

 

Members commented that:

 

·         The detail still needed to be established and it was good that the CCC heads were talking to officers to try and develop the best proposals possible in the circumstances to improve outcomes for children.

·         The achievements reported were very positive after a number of years where the situation had been stagnant and the Authority needed to be very careful that this progress was not lost.

 

Further to which it was:

 

Resolved -

 

(1)       That the Executive be requested to take account of the views expressed by the Committee in respect of the future of the Children’s Centre Clusters as follows:

 

(a)  The Committee recognises the imperative for meaningful contact and assessment of the needs of children and their families at their house door and therefore the need for an appropriate number of frontline workers.

(b)  The model should be applied flexibly in different parts of the district.

(c)  Further consideration should be given to the implications of the retention and cost of under used buildings.

(d)  Further consideration should be given to the alternative model put forward by the Nursery Schools.

(e)  The Committee calls for greater co-operation between partners to link IT systems and improve the pathway of referrals.

(f)   The Committee recognises and expresses thanks for the commitment and skills of those supporting our young people and families.

 

(2)       That the Chair lobby the Government, on behalf of the Committee, to review its funding proposals which clearly have a detrimental impact upon those children and families in greatest need and the areas of greatest deprivation.

 

ACTION:       Strategic Director, Children’s Services

                        Interim City Solicitor

                        Scrutiny Lead